Pacific Islanders V Club conflict

First topic message reminder :

Really really depressing that this old issue has not been resolved. Surely our great game of rugby should be able to ensure that all countries are able to select their best players without individual clubs putting financial pressure on players to not play? Does this only apply to Samoa, Fiji and Tonga and other small countries? The RWC makes enough money to ensure that the pooer countries should be able to look after their own players. Absolute disgrace and if true then Toulouse and any other club found guilty of pressuring players like this should face severe penalties....big fines or even excluded from European competition for a season.

From the Telegrapgh.

Leading European clubs are pres­surising their Pacific Island players to retire from international rugby four months out from the World Cup, it has been claimed.

Dan Leo, the London Irish lock, believes that Samoa could lose up to a third of their squad with clubs offering incentivised contracts to players who turn their backs on their countries. Those who opt to represent Samoa, Fiji or Tonga in the World Cup potentially face losing 40 per cent of their salaries. Leo, 32, is speaking from personal experience.

“There’s no hints or beating around the bush, they come out and say ‘stop playing for your country’.”

Leo, who is leaving Irish at the end of the season, said. “It is standard practice. I have not made a decision about whether I will be at the World Cup because I am struggling to find a club that will pay me during the tournament. If I want to play professionally next year, I may have to forfeit ­playing at the World Cup.”

Leo’s case is not unique. He says Census Johnston, the tighthead prop, recently signed a new contract with Toulouse on the condition that he retire from international duty. A lot more players are in the same boat according to Leo, who led the Samoa players’ protests against their own union last November.

Johnston recently signed new contract with Toulouse on condition he retire from international duty

“Almost every Pacific Island player I have spoken to has had pressure put on them to retire [from international rugby],” Leo said. “If everyone could speak as openly as I do, they would say the same thing. Everyone is getting those pressures put on them. When they are negotiating a deal with the clubs, they will say ‘we will give you this bit more if you don’t play for your country’.

“Census is our most experienced player and by far our best tighthead. So if you take out a player like him, Paul Williams and myself, who are three guys coming out of contract, that’s a massive leadership drain on the squad. How do you replace that?

• World Rugby to review 'integrity' of residency rule

“That’s a very real thing for our management to deal with, hence they have named a 58-man training squad for the World Cup. Out of those 58, 12 or 13 will have their contracts coming up. If they decide to stay at their clubs then we lose a third of our [World Cup] squad.”

World Rugby’s Regulation Nine states that: “The future development and extension of the sport at all levels and throughout the world would be threatened if a Union was not able to select and have available the players it requires.”

Clubs would argue that they have done nothing wrong as retiring players are making an individual decision, but it would certainly seem in contravention of World Rugby’s demand of “compliance with not only the letter of the regulation, but also its spirit”.

Premiership clubs will be compensated for the loss of their England players during the World Cup, but not for their foreign internationals. Leo has a measure of sympathy for them and says it’s the responsibility of World Rugby to find a solution.

“I can see it from the clubs’ point of view that they don’t want to be paying players who aren’t going to be around but World Rugby will be making a huge amount of money from the World Cup so they should be stepping in there to secure the release from the clubs.”

A World Rugby spokesman said: “While it would be inappropriate to comment on any allegations without possession of the facts, World Rugby works tirelessly with its unions to ensure that the spirit of regulation nine and the integrity of the international game is preserved.”

The news comes just as Samoa’s players were making real progress in a long-running struggle with their own union having threatened to boycott their match against England last November. The union’s chief executive and head of performance have been replaced and a collective bargaining agreement, which would guarantee minimum levels of pay and facilities, is close to being formalised. At the previous World Cup, Samoa turned up to training sessions without practice balls.

“For so long, it has been about ­sorting out our own backyard. No one was going to take us seriously until we did that,” Leo said. “But we are fighting this battle against our own union and we don’t have the resources to fight against the clubs as well.”

So the barriers to them are they don't play the top tier enough?

And they have difficulty getting released by clubs and the unions are impoverished. £80 a day the fijians got for internationals. If top teams toured there more the unions would have more money and thus be able to compensate their players for any reduction in salery from their clubs

If they want releasing from clubs they get it, during international windows. Any issues are faced across the board not just PI. Are you sure about the touring, sure I read they get more money from touring elsewhere?

Its just not a black and white situation.

lostinwales wrote:Its just not a black and white situation.

And yes they should get more touring sides but even when they do it must be very hard to make home internationals pay

No, it's a balancing act for the players wanting to make their living but I don't think the issues they face are isolated to the islands neceassarily.

if the Fijian union had a bit more money it could pay players properly for internationals so the clubs who want to pay less unless you retire from internationals would have much less leverage

Yes it applies to all unions but the effects are greater on the pacific islanders

Fijian union is massively corrupt so I'm not sure giving them more money is the simple answer. Touring teams should get a fixed amount from the host (which World Rugby can be asked to pay for the smaller unions). World Rugby needs to sort of the touring schedule properly (which they were supposed to be doing since the last World Cup).

As for players, how many PI have been "poached"? Do you class people who moved as kids in this? (e.g. Falatau, Vunipolas, Tuilagi, all the kiwi ones). How many adult PI players have gone on to play for different countries? Rokoduguni? And he had been in the British army since he was 20. How many PI players have retired from international rugby? I can't really think of any that make themselves unavailable. Not saying it doesn't happen but can you think of any player this 'could' apply to? (i.e. someone who retired young and capable).

Folks, this is mainly the players' call.

They can choose to take a lower wage and play for their country or they can choose a higher wage and play only for their club.

Its their own free choice and theres nothing world rugby can do about it only supplement their wages and that would cost a fortune.

Hammer - its Samoa who are corrupt is it not?

NZ players get £1000 a day to play internationals. ( according to a newspaper article I read - I guess £1000 a match) Fiji players £80. So if an NZ player gets a lessor paid contract to play for a club ( with international release) he can make it up with international payments. a fijian cannot

Hamer - Census Johnsone?

Which is why stopping clubs playing fixtures during internationals is really the only option. Plenty of drawbacks though.

Also the Leo article is quite poignant, He may not be the most talented player on the planet but he is a key experienced player for his country, who ma not be able to attend his final RWC because 2 french clubs will only offer contracts for his services if he is available come RWC time.

Johnstone is a huge one, I asked earlier but will Samu Manoa be available for the USA?

The New Zealand Union threatened to pull the All Blacks from the world cup because they were losing too much money on it. Theres a big issue for all nations with the difference between the money internationals cost to host and the revenue they generate vs the club gae, and the amount of money the nations can afford to pay th top players vs the amount the clubs in some countries (espec france) can and will .
It made worse by several boards (like the Fijian one) making FIFA look squeaky clean, and a general reluctance from world rugby to increase payments they know wont go to the right places or for the handful of profitable unions/clubs to let their money go to the IRB.
Some players vote with their wallets and let their international careers slide. Others move over to bigger clubs as kids to get the better training facilities and support and end up going through their adopted countries development system. Amazingly those countries then want to pick those players.

Nagusa who had his contracted extended till 2018 recently by Montpelier is being (allegedly) threatened to be axed as the club do not like the idea of him playing the RWC (apparently the even sent a letter notifying that). if that's true, it's 1) sickening and 2) should be an opportuntity for the IRB to enforce some rules and take some strong actiosn towards the club.

on a side note I feel sad for Montpelier supporters : jake white managed to allienate the fans in a matter of 6 month getting rid of some of historical and local players and bringing a dozen of South africans / austalian :

White ( Brumbies), Catrakilis ( Stormers) J. Du Plessis ( Bulls), Van der Merwe (Bulls), , Willemse (2e ligne, Grenoble), Liebenberg (, Bulls), Wright ( Sharks), Nakailagi ( Fidji), Mogg (Brumbies), Spies ( Bulls) , Burden (toulon) and possibly F. Steyn ( Sharks) and the Plessis brothers from the sharks as well!!!

Census Jonstone has been in France for how many years since he left Sarries?
I would imagine that if he really wanted to play in the WC he could take a bit of a sabatical away from the game. Money surely ist that big an issue there. As a TH he will be raking in the cash.

Prop

Isn't Jonstone supporting quite a large family both at home and domestically though? Maybe i'm thinking of smebody else but I have a feeling it is him.

His brother is at Saracens so he's not doing it on his own.

propdavid_london wrote:Census Jonstone has been in France for how many years since he left Sarries?
I would imagine that if he really wanted to play in the WC he could take a bit of a sabatical away from the game.  Money surely ist that big an issue there.  As a TH he will be raking in the cash.

Money is the issue here. It is well noted that French and English clubs tried very hard on numerous occaisions to convince foreign players to drop their international commitments.

maestegmafia wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:Census Jonstone has been in France for how many years since he left Sarries?
I would imagine that if he really wanted to play in the WC he could take a bit of a sabatical away from the game.  Money surely ist that big an issue there.  As a TH he will be raking in the cash.

Money is the issue here. It is well noted that French and English clubs tried very hard on numerous occaisions to convince foreign players to drop their international commitments.

Agreed. I think that's the reason why the IRB needs to enforce player release, but also ensure that there is a one release fits all for international players.

Fanster wrote:Also the Leo article is quite poignant, He may not be the most talented player on the planet but he is a key experienced player for his country, who ma not be able to attend his final RWC because 2 french clubs will only offer contracts for his services if he is available come RWC time.

Johnstone is a huge one, I asked earlier but will Samu Manoa be available for the USA?

Dan Leo is complaining because he wanted a club to hire him in June/July, when he wouldn't be available until October(?). The clubs want to start his contract when he finishes with the World Cup. Understand why he wants the money but it's hardly unreasonable. If anything it shows they should get contracts that run over a World Cup year.

Has it been mentioned yet that everyone is being released early from he English Premiership? Amazing what dialogue achieves.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Has it been mentioned yet that everyone is being released early from he English Premiership? Amazing what dialogue achieves.

Dialogue and/or incentives?

Is there a compensation policy on such largesse between RFU and PRL?

He means every player - no matter what country.

The main sticking point in the past (other than Roger Lewis) has been the issue of player insurance. Countries have either refused to insure the players (Wales), or the Union was too poor (Georgia) or too corrupt (Samoa) to afford insurance. However outside of official international release windows the clubs own insurance is not valid.

My understanding is that World Rugby is covering the insurance payments for those unable to pay, and ensuring those countries with dosh cover it themselves.

blackcanelion wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:Census Jonstone has been in France for how many years since he left Sarries?
I would imagine that if he really wanted to play in the WC he could take a bit of a sabatical away from the game.  Money surely ist that big an issue there.  As a TH he will be raking in the cash.

Money is the issue here. It is well noted that French and English clubs tried very hard on numerous occaisions to convince foreign players to drop their international commitments.

Is that true? I am sure you will be able to provide loads of examples if it is.


Only thing I can vaguely think of similar was when Saints first hired Samu Manoa because they needed cover during RWC11 and he chose not to represent USA (no guarantees they would have selected him back then) so he could take what was his first professional contract.

Is this relevant?

"The IRB has yet to investigate allegations made by Simon Mannix, a former All Black and coach of Racing Métro, that Fijians at his club were paid to make themselves unavailable for the 2011 World Cup in order to play in the French Top 14."

"Racing Métro had Fijians who declined to go to the World Cup … because the club gave them a cheque if they stayed here [in Paris]."

"The IRB responded that it can only take action if a complaint is received."

"Rob Nichol, chief executive of the IRPA, said: "We have been made aware of various situations where this kind of thing has happened but the players concerned haven't wanted to take it to the next level".

"The Racing players declined to play for Fiji in the 2011 Pacific Nations Cup, effectively ruling themselves out of World Cup selection".

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/blackmail-threat-to-rugby-world-cup-clubs-pay-players-not-to-appear-8282961.html

Let's not forget it's the professional clubs that improve these players - give them the facilities and wealth to fulfil their potential.

It's up the players themselves to decide how valuable international rugby is to them.


A player's value for a club goes up and down based on how often they can play obviously.

Of course I want to see strong Pacific Island international teams but it's hard to do that when their unions don't have control of their players.

At least there is a large pool of Pacific Island talent playing rugby union whether it's under the flag of the Pacific Island teams or not.

Not really Ebop, as my question was relating to the assertion that English clubs are guilty of numerous charges. I do not know enough about T14 matters to challenge whether it is widespread in France.

Sorry, I just looked back at your post LondonTiger to see that you didn't highlight France so you meant England only. I don't know of any English examples. But I do feel a bit for PI players or players from other smaller rugby nations that have been put in this situation. It sucks.

beshocked wrote:Let's not forget it's the professional clubs that improve these players - give them the facilities and wealth to fulfil their potential.

It's up the players themselves to decide how valuable international rugby is to them.


A player's value for a club goes up and down based on how often they can play obviously.

Of course I want to see strong Pacific Island international teams but it's hard to do that when their unions don't have control of their players.

At least there is a large pool of Pacific Island talent playing rugby union whether it's under the flag of the Pacific Island teams or not.

You might call such decisions as motivated by the number of zeros in a bribe? After all, the word 'bribe' is doing the circuit now in many avenues and if you get extra money offered to make a decision (rather than such decisions already being wrapped up in legal contracts) then you might throw the word 'bribe' at such a policy, IF it indeed existed at Métro

I agree that it sucks.

I agree that clubs should not force players to give up International rugby.

However I also feel that clubs should not have to pay a player more than he is worth to them purely because the players union does not pay them for internationals.

And things are rarely black and white. Last autumn the Samoan players, including Daniel Leo, almost went on strike and only played at Twickenham because the RFU guaranteed payment.

Leo's current contract has expired and he wants a new employer to pay him while he is away and before he actually turns up to work (how many of us would persuade a new employer to do that for us?). This has happened with England players before who were unattached to a club during World Cups - and thus would only have received the England money.

Isa Nacewa, for his own personal reasons, opted out of international rugby to concentrate on his club career. He was perfectly entitled to do so.


short of having a standardised rugby calendar, there is no ideal solution to this, and pretty much everyone loses out.

I'm honestly not deep into the details of this issue but the quote below indicates a 'bribe' like kind of inducement was offered as SecretFly suggests. This is a bit different from say a reduced contract value off the bat for a player that will be missing for a few weeks. It is preying on the poor.

"Racing Métro had Fijians who declined to go to the World Cup … because the club gave them a cheque if they stayed here [in Paris]."

I agree that sucks. Until we have no rugby world wide during RWCs it will continue to happen.

Yeah you're right. Clubs can do this because they can. Players accept the money because they want to and know what it means.

If they stay at the their club, they'll be playing for their club when they otherwise wouldn't be...therefore they get paid more. During a world cup, due to the best players being unavailable, the 'value' of players not at the world cup goes up. That's just a feature of the current system. There's nothing untoward in that and until there is a flat salary for all rugby players it will remain this way. Just as better players get more money to stay with a club. Or, in England, EQ players are worth more than NEQ, and therefore get paid more.

If you're planning your squad and you know there is a world cup coming up and you know that one or even two players in a position are going to get called up you're willing to a pay more for someone who will be available. If they're not going to be available you simply wouldn't hire them, because your other guys would be back by then anyway.

HammerofThunor wrote:If they stay at the their club, they'll be playing for their club when they otherwise wouldn't be...therefore they get paid more.  During a world cup, due to the best players being unavailable, the 'value' of players not at the world cup goes up.  That's just a feature of the current system.  There's nothing untoward in that and until there is a flat salary for all rugby players it will remain this way. Just as better players get more money to stay with a club. Or, in England, EQ players are worth more than NEQ, and therefore get paid more.

If you're planning your squad and you know there is a world cup coming up and you know that one or even two players in a position are going to get called up you're willing to a pay more for someone who will be available. If they're not going to be available you simply wouldn't hire them, because your other guys would be back by then anyway.

That's all very well in any advance pre-planned contract between players and club.  

That's not what is at issue though, is it?  

What is at issue seems to be spur-of-the-moment inducements offered to players to 'coax' them to stay put rather than bouncing off to play for their Nations.  That would be extra-curricular to contract agreements and that would be problematic on a number of fronts.
1.  It allows players to be paid above agreed levels in any Cap Based League.  If your Salary cap is analysed at the beginning of a season and based on existing player contracts then anything extra offered during a season is ...extra offered.  
2.  It could easily be termed 'bribe'.  Who owns the notion of what a 'bribe' is and what are legitimate increased payments?  Well, I think a court and a case might best work those definitions out.  But you could certainly throw an accusation of potential bribery at such activities....if they happen as additions to an already agreed contract.
3. And mostly overlooked but perhaps the most serious - the potential for any National League to effect the potency of an opposition International side facing their own National side at the WC by using a system to pay Internationals to stay with their club.

ebop wrote:Yeah you're right. Clubs can do this because they can. Players accept the money because they want to and know what it means.

Players also join clubs where they can hone their condition and skills. Yes its all a pain and all to murky but many of these guys (especially Manoa) are worth as much as they are because of how their professional clubs have developed them.

lostinwales wrote:

ebop wrote:Yeah you're right. Clubs can do this because they can. Players accept the money because they want to and know what it means.

Players also join clubs where they can hone their condition and skills. Yes its all a pain and all to murky but many of these guys (especially Manoa) are worth as much as they are because of how their professional clubs have developed them.

Players go to Europe in the main to earn money. They have a limited playing career, they often have limited opportunities outside sport and young families. There is the added bonus of essentially being able to work from home (limited travel away from home), tax incentives in Ireland (not sure if this still applies) and a years retirement on pay if you work in France. There are other bonuses as well, but income is the key.

One of the key strategic things World Rugby has to do is ensure there is a structure that enables international rugby to survive and flourish. I'd say it's struggling to that. Release of players is the minimum requirement. The clubs will always want more. The reality is for the game to grow you need the international game. Rugby league's arguably had a better club product than union for years and pretty much has no growth. They are just starting to cotton onto the fact that they need a genuine international game.

SecretFly, are those sort of payments happening? The main example raised so far is Census Johnston. He retired following a new contract. As for a cap not counting payments during the season, well that would be a little silly now, wouldn't it?

SecretFly wrote:3. And mostly overlooked but perhaps the most serious - the potential for any National League to effect the potency of an opposition International side facing their own National side at the WC by using a system to pay Internationals to stay with their club.

How would this benefit a 'National League', 'club'* or organisation representing those 'clubs'.? Given how often the unions (those who would benefit from scuppering another national side against their own) are at loggerheads with the clubs this is unlikely to be the case. If 'clubs' want to keep hold of their players it's for their own benefit, not for the national side. Which is why England has an EPS and agreements in place for their own players.

I can only see this issue potentially rearing its head where a nation has its national side and 'clubs' run by the union. Only then would they have both the influence and the motive.

*I've used 'club' to represent Region, Province etc as well.

Cyril, are you saying French rugby club owners (for example) do not really care if France won a RWC? I imagine some club owners are self-centred, self-obsessed and greedy, but surely they would be a little bit excited if their nation won the big event. Just a little bit.

ebop wrote:Cyril, are you saying French rugby club owners (for example) do not really care if France won a RWC? I imagine some club owners are self-centred, self-obsessed and greedy, but surely they would be a little bit excited if their nation won the big event. Just a little bit.

Aye, they're the worst ones: self-obsessed, greedy and patriotic

Ha, yes Cyril, world rugby needs to stamp out patriotic club owners, they're ruining the game!

It does raise a good point here, large governing bodies would go to war all day for their players release, and the rugby community would sit up and take notice, now my problem isn't that the LNR clubs want to negotiate for players who aren't going to be at the RWC, or negotiating more for players who refuse to go to the RWC, it's how this is being done, and in the majority to which player type.

When Toulon for example threw a hissy fit and demanded Botha and Williams? return from international duty mid tournament this presents less of a problem, they are after all Toulon players, and are high profile enough, paid enough, they are in demand enough, and are protected enough to deal with this, but when a group of players who are forced to go wherever they can get a contract, are then thrown around and used like rag dolls without any protection from governing boodies, without the protection of World Rugby, then it becomes an issue for me.

If we are meant to be growing the game at all times, the PI community need a common voice, someone to stand up for them, and to be treated as if they were tier 1 nation players!

We had this situation with Fijian player in 2011, and it was a non issue in the rugby world, that was frankly disgusting! How does a team draw 16-16 with Wales then get beat 66-0 12 months later?

Was the hissy fit done for the international game played outside of the window?

I'm not sure which instance your talking about, I was talking about Habana, Botha and Lobbe (sorry) who were being demanded to return to France despite being mid tournament at the Rugby Cahmpionship (What is that called now? too many Champions in too many tournaments).

That was a hissy fit and reaction from a few injuries wasn't it?

Ah right. Again just stop playing club games during international windows, it's the only way to stop it.

Yeah and extend the season so its 13 months long.

The problem is the clubs are talking more games not less. Why? Because their interest is club rugby. Not that the unions are much better, they demand tests and training camps outside the windows..almost as if their primary concern was the ineernational game.

And so it goes.

Fanster wrote: How does a team draw 16-16 with Wales then get beat 66-0 12 months later?

Ireland had a 57 point difference swing in the space of a week on their new zealnd tour, Im pretty sure that wasnt down to the lack of release of a couple of fijians.

Fanster wrote:I'm not sure which instance your talking about, I was talking about Habana, Botha and Lobbe (sorry) who were being demanded to return to France despite being mid tournament at the Rugby Cahmpionship (What is that called now? too many Champions in too many tournaments).

That was a hissy fit and reaction from a few injuries wasn't it?

The international window for the RC has gaps in it (same as the 6 nations). Unions have no rights to players during these gaps, unless they have an agreement with the players' clubs.

Blame the IRB (i.e. the unions) for having gaps in the windows.

Fanster wrote: How does a team draw 16-16 with Wales then get beat 66-0 12 months later?

That's a pretty good example of the difference between the Welsh 1st team and the Welsh 2nd team at those points.

How does a team go from winning one 6 nations game to a grand slam a year later?